Phosphorus (P) is a vital macronutrient for grapevine ( Vitis vinifera L.); however, the physiological and biochemical mechanisms governing grapevine adaptation across varying P supply levels—from deficiency to toxicity—require further clarification. This study evaluated the morphophysiological, nutritional, and biochemical adaptations of two contrasting grapevine cultivars, ‘Khalili’ and ‘Perlette’, to varying P levels: 0 mM (deficiency), 2.5 mM (sufficiency), and 5 mM (excess/toxicity). Results demonstrated that vegetative growth parameters—including stem length, stem diameter, lateral shoot number, and shoot dry weight—peaked under P sufficiency (2.5 mM), whereas severe P deficiency and P excess significantly impaired shoot development. In contrast, root dry weight remained comparable between 2.5 and 5 mM P, resulting in a higher root-to-shoot ratio under P excess. Nutrient profiling revealed distinct tissue-specific partitioning: P supply promoted foliar P and N accumulation while altering root macronutrient status (N, P, K, Ca, Mg), but sharply reduced foliar Fe and Zn concentrations. In roots, elevated P suppressed Fe, Mn, and Cu accumulation while enhancing Zn uptake. Both P deficiency and excess triggered oxidative stress, evidenced by up-regulated activities of antioxidant enzymes (catalase, guaiacol peroxidase, and ascorbate peroxidase) in leaves and roots. Cultivar-specific responses were prominent: P deficiency induced substantial anthocyanin accumulation and higher leaf starch content in ‘Khalili’, whereas ‘Perlette’ maintained more stable ionic homeostasis under P excess. Overall, 2.5 mM P represents the physiological optimum for grapevine vegetative development, while both extreme deficiency and excess impair growth via distinct mineral imbalances and oxidative stress cascades.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Behrooz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: